83-091
e
e
e
RESOLUTION NO. q 1- ~:3-.
WHEREAS, Howard Shenehon and Mary Goodlund have applied
for the division of part of Lot 17 and all of Lots 18, 19, and
20, Shady Island, into three residential lots, and
WHEREAS, the application was forwarded to the Planning
Commission for public hearing on November 11, 1983, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended the
subdivision of the three lots be approved and variance granted on
a vote of 4 - 3, and
WHEREAS, the matter was placed on for consideration
before the City Council on November 14, 1983, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed the attorney to
draft a resolution denying the request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council finds the following facts:
a. That the property to be divided is described as
Lot 17 and all of 18, 19 and 20, Shady Island.
b. The property contains approximately 56,381
square feet of area and is currently occupied by a small seasonal
cabin.
c. That the property is zoned R-l, Single Family
Residential, requiring lot sizes of 40,000 square feet.
d. That the four lots are one tax parcel and have
merged according to the provisions of city ordinances, and that
they are undersized, under common ownership, and are contiguous
to each other.
e. That the requested subdivision would establish
three lots with an average of 18,783 square feet.
f. That lot sizes on the Island range from 14,000
to 70,000 square feet~ the average lot size is approximately
27,972 square feet~ the mean lot size is 25,000 square feet.
g. That the property is serviced by Maple Lane,
which is 15 feet wide and ends in a dead end with no cul-de-sac.
. ~
.
e
e
h. That the property in question was assessed for
one sewer assessment.
i. That applicants indicated their hardship to be
that the property was jointly owned by Mr. Shenehon and his
sister, Mrs. Goodlund, and that it was time to get his estate in
order, and that there was presently located on Lot 19, a summer
cabin existing on a slab which could not be moved.
j. That the two families have different desires
and long-range plans for the property.
CONCLUSIONS
That based on the foregoing, Council concludes that
applicants have not established a hardship within a meeting of
State statutes and City Ordinances and the requested lot division
and necessary variances are hereby denied.